Hostname: page-component-66d9dcfd78-njmxx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-08-07T17:13:20.913Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE IMPORTANCE OF INDIVIDUAL WORK IN COLLABORATIVE DESIGN MEETING: IMPACT ON DESIGN TOOLS AND METHODOLOGIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Izabella Chartres ,
Thierry Gidel  and
Claude Moulin
Izabella Chartres
Affiliation:
Université de Lille, CIREL, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en éducation de Lille, URL 4354;
Thierry Gidel*
Affiliation:
Sorbonne Universités, Université de technologie Compiègne, COSTECH, Connaissance, Organisation et Systèmes Techniques, EA 2223;
Claude Moulin
Affiliation:
Sorbonne Universités, Université de technologie de Compiègne, Heudiasyc, UMR 7253
*
Gidel, Thierry, Sorbonne Universités, Université de technologie Compiègne, France, thierry.gidel@utc.fr

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

This paper demonstrates the importance of individual work in collaborative design meetings based on Granger’ causality and discusses how this impacts design tools and methodologies.

Based on Tucker's et al. CIAO model of globally collaborative work which allows distinguishing the main modes of interaction during a meeting, our research identifies the patterns or sequences of those interaction modes according to the Granger causality concept. Granger causality makes it possible to identify a temporal precedence of events without necessarily implying causality.

The results show that individual work plays a key role in achieving collaborative work. However, other factors such as the nature of the meetings and the objectives pursued also influence the sequences of interaction of the different modes.

These first results allow making recommendations on collaborative work methodologies and support mechanisms for collaboration. For instance, the ability of digital devices to facilitate the simultaneous individual work of participants in a collective space is a key factor and the ability to preserve sequences for individual work during a design meeting should be monitored to keep global efficiency.

Keywords

Collaborative designGrangerDesign methodologyCSCWDDesign methods

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 3405 - 3414
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Baker, M., 2015. Collaboration in Collaborative Learning. Interaction Studies 16, 451–473. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.16.3.05bakCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baudrit, A., 2007. Apprentissage coopératif/Apprentissage collaboratif: d'un comparatisme conventionnel à un comparatisme critique, Cooperative/Collaborative Learning: from conventional to critical comparative study, Aprendizaje cooperativo/aprendizaje colaborativo : de un comparatismo convencional a un comparatismo critique. Les Sciences de l’éducation - Pour l’Ère nouvelle 40, 115–136. https://doi.org/10.3917/lsdle.401.0115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boujut, J.-F., Blanco, E., 2003. Intermediary Objects as a Means to Foster Co-operation in Engineering Design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 12, 205–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruffee, K.A., 1995. Sharing Our Toys: Cooperative Learning versus Collaborative Learning. Change 27, 12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Correia, A., Paredes, H., Fonseca, B., 2018. Reframing Taxonomy Development in Collaborative Computing Research: A Review and Synthesis of CSCW Literature 2003–2010, in: Rodrigues, A., Fonseca, B., Preguiça, N. (Eds.), Collaboration and Technology, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 42–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99504-5_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gidel, T., Tucker, A., Fujita, S., Moulin, C., Sugawara, K., Suganuma, T., Kaeri, Y., Shiratori, N., 2020. Interaction Model and Respect of Rules to Enhance Collaborative Brainstorming Results. Adv. sci. technol. eng. syst. j. 5, 484–493. https://doi.org/10.25046/aj050262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, C.W.J., 1980. Testing for causality: A personal viewpoint. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 2, 329–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1889(80)90069-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, C.W.J., 1969. Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-spectral Methods. Econometrica 37, 424–438. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerra, A.L., Gidel, T., Vezzetti, E., 2017. A study on the impact of HOVER platforms on design teams collaborative behaviors during collocated collective early preliminary design activities, in: International Conference on Engineering Design. Presented at the DS 87-8 Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17) Vol 8: Human Behaviour in Design, Vancouver, Canada, 21-25.08. 2017, Vancouvert, Canada, pp. 339–348.Google Scholar
Kendira, A., Gidel, T., Jones, A., Lenne, D., Bartès, J.-P., Moulin, C., 2011. Conducting Preliminary Design around an Interactive Tabletop, in: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering Design. Presented at the ICED, pp. 366–376.Google Scholar
Moulin, C., Jones, A., Barthès, J.-P., Lenne, D., 2011. Preliminary Design on Multi-touch surfaces Managed by Multi-agent System. IJEIC 2011 2.Google Scholar
Moulin, C., Kaeri, Y., Sugawara, K., Abel, M.-H., 2016. Capitalization of remote collaborative brainstorming activities. Computer Standards & Interfaces, Special Issue on Information System in Distributed Environment 48, 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2015.11.006Google Scholar
Panitz, T., 1999. Collaborative versus Cooperative Learning: A Comparison of the Two Concepts Which Will Help Us Understand the Underlying Nature of Interactive Learning [WWW Document]. URL https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED448443.pdf (accessed 1.26.18).Google Scholar
Shannon, C.E., 1948. A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27, 379–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sizmur, S.R., 1996. Collaborative Concept Mapping and Children's Learning in Primary Science. King's College, London.Google Scholar
Soller, A., 2001. Supporting Social Interaction in an Intelligent Collaborative Learning System. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 12.Google Scholar
Teasley, S., Roschelle, J., 1995. Constructing a Joint Problem Space: The Computer as a Tool for Sharing Knowledge, in: O'Malley, C. (Ed.), Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
Tucker, A., 2020. Learning to Collaborate: The Influence of Physical Digital Workspaces on the Development of Collaborative Competencies. Université de Lille.Google Scholar
Tucker, A., Gidel, T., Fluckiger, C., 2019. Designing Physical-Digital Workspaces to Support Globally Collaborative Work, in: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 19) 5-8 August 2019, Delft, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wainer, J., Barsottini, C., 2007. Empirical research in CSCW — a review of the ACM/CSCW conferences from 1998 to 2004. J Braz Comp Soc 13, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03192543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, J.R., Oji, S., Anslow, C., 2017. Technologies, Methods, and Values: Changes in Empirical Research at CSCW 1990 - 2015. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 1, 106:1–106:18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134741Google Scholar
Woolley, A.W., Chabris, C.F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., Malone, T.W., 2010. Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups. Science 330, 686–688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zumbach, J., Schönemann, J., Reimann, P., 2005. Analysing and supporting collaboration in cooperative computer-mediated communication. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 758–767. https://doi.org/10.3115/1149293.1149393Google Scholar